« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »
The initial set of documents in the Motor Vehicle Hazard Archives Project’s “Lap Belt Restraint” collection have been posted. Click on “Collections” and go to “Lap Belt Restraints” to view the documents.
Posted by MVHAP at 04:30 PM
The comment period for NHTSA’s plan to amend its roof-crush rule, FMVSS 216, closed Nov. 21. A few days later NHTSA posted comments received during the prior week from safety advocates, engineering experts, state officials, auto industry members and others. It was clear from the comments that most commenters were unhappy with the plan, although for widely varying reasons. Safety advocates and some engineering experts blasted it as much too little, much too late, and urged that the static test now in the standard be replaced with a dynamic test replicating real-world rollover conditions. Auto company interests generally wanted test and compliance-date aspects of the proposal weakened. Safety advocates opposed the civil-liberties preemption proposal; industry interests supported it. A state governor was critical of both the proposed standard and of NHTSA’s failure to consult with states before proposing that the standard preempt law suits against manufacturers for alleged defects in complying vehicles. (See October postings for more information on the preemption proposal.) Two U.S. senators, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa), joined in writing a letter to NHTSA critizing the proposal. "Congress mandated that NHTSA establish standards to 'reduce vehicle rollover crashes and mitigate deaths and injuries associated with such crashes.' It seems to us that this end will not be served by the new proposed rule," they said.
Typical of safety advocate views was this excerpt from the statement of Public Citizen:
“Astoundingly, NHTSA’s proposed rule, issued after three decades without an upgrade, requires only a token increase in roof strength and fails to provide an adequate level of rollover crashworthiness consistent with current technology. In fact, the proposed rule is so de minimis that 70 percent of the current vehicle fleet does not need to make any improvement to meet the proposed standards,4 and costs for vehicles requiring improvement is a measly $10.61. At a conceptual level, the proposal sets the roof strength standard without consideration of the critical role of roof crush resistance in determining the performance of other features important in protecting occupants in rollovers. This misunderstanding, which separates roof crush resistance from the dynamic event of a rollover, cripples the agency’s attempt to address rollover crashworthiness. Instead of maintaining this failed strategy, the agency should require compliance with the dolly rollover test now part of the occupant containment standard in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, currently an alternative means of certifying compliance with FMVSS No. 216, the roof crush resistance rule. The 208 test is conducted regularly by all of the major manufacturers and produces repeatable results from the standpoint of occupant injury. Only a dynamic test is capable of measuring the success of the standard in preventing roof crush and consequent occupant injury.”
See the full statement here.
To view all comments submitted to NHTSA in the FMVSS 216 rulemaking, do the following:
When the list of comments appears, click “reverse” at top of page to see most recent comments.
Posted by MVHAP at 04:25 PM
The first round of government crash tests for new model year 2006 passenger vehicles have resulted in five getting “top honors,” according to an agency statement. It recently completed the front and side impact crash tests on new vehicles already in dealer showrooms and found five vehicles--the Honda Odyssey minivan, the Hyundai Sonata four-door sedan, the Hyundai Tucson sport utility vehicle, the Mercedes Benz ML Class SUV, and the Subaru B9 Tribeca SUV all worthy of five-star ratings. The Pontiac G6 two-door Coupe took top honors in NHTSA’s rollover rating program.
Posted by MVHAP at 04:22 PM
Ford is recalling nearly 224,000 vehicles because their windshield wipers may malfunction, and nearly 226,000 vehicles, including the Ford Five Hundred sedan, because of defects that could lead to fires.
The windshield wiper recall includes the 2006 Escape, Expedition, Explorer, F-150, Ranger, Taurus, Mark LT, Navigator, Mariner, and Mountaineer vehicles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said the windshield wiper motor on the vehicles may have been produced without grease being applied to a gear. The Ford recall campaigns to fix defects on vehicles that could lead to fires include the 2005 Ford Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Car, and Mercury Grand Marquis. Those models have a battery cable defect that could cause a fire. The Five Hundred, Mercury Montego, and Ford Freestyle models are being recalled to replace straps that hold their fuel tanks in place.
Posted by MVHAP at 04:20 PM
The latest edition of NHTSA’s annual round-up of motor vehicle crash and crash injury statistics and trends, a basic reference work for anyone involved with motor vehicle crash injury control, is now available at the agency’s website as a .pdf document. “Traffic Safety Facts 2004” is a large file, so be prepared to wait while it downloads.
Posted by MVHAP at 04:18 PM
According to a Detroit News report, safety engineers are charging that, “Many of Ford Motor Co.'s best-selling Explorer SUVs from the 1999 to 2001 model years likely do not meet a crucial safety requirement intended to protect passengers in rollover crashes, a safety engineering firm claimed in a petition filed with the federal government. Safety Analysis and Forensic Engineering, which performs research for plaintiffs suing automakers, says internal Ford documents show that a substantial number of 1999 to 2001 Explorers likely do not comply with the federal vehicle roof strength standard.” The full report is here.
Posted by MVHAP at 04:16 PM
In light of NHTSA’s current FMVSS 216 rulemaking concerning vehicle roof crush in rollovers, two recent appellate court opinions in cases involving SUV rollover injuries are of particular relevance, especially in view of NHTSA's proposal to bar lawsuits in injury cases involving roof crush of SUVs and other vehicles meeting its new standard. (For more information about the rulemaking, see the October "Current Developments" archive and the item below, "NHTSA Conceals Volvo-Ford Roofcrush Docs".) The appellate opinions are as follows:
--McCathern v. Toyota, in which an Oregon jury found that a Toyota 4Runner SUV was defective due to what a plaintiff’s expert testified was “a very high rollover rate commensurate with its low stability.” The jury awarded damages for the “severe permanent injuries” sustained by Linda McCathern the 1994 Toyota 4Runner in which she was a passenger rolled over. Toyota appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals and, losing there, to the Oregon Supreme Court, where again it lost. Both decisions are shown.
--Ammerman v. Ford, in which Lana and Pamela Ammerman sustained severe and permanent injuries when a 1986 Bronco II 4x4 in which they were passengers rolled over. An Indiana jury found that the Bronco was unreasonably unstable and therefore defective, and awarded the Ammerman’s punitive damages, which Ford appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the award, noting evidence showing that Ford’s own engineers had attempted to have the company approve a less hazardous design. It agreed that the “continued push to production of this product after all of the internal protestation to the contrary, is the crassest form of corporate indifference to the safety of the ultimate user or consumer and constitutes gross negligence.” The Indiana and U.S. Supreme Courts refused to hear Ford’s appeal from this decision.
Posted by MVHAP at 03:49 PM
Posted by MVHAP at 10:59 AM
Posted by MVHAP at 10:57 AM | TrackBack
Posted by MVHAP at 10:50 AM | TrackBack
Posted by MVHAP at 10:47 AM | TrackBack
Posted by MVHAP at 10:45 AM
Posted by MVHAP at 10:42 AM
According to U.S. News and World Report, a Connecticut non-profit group, Informed for Life, has released what it terms as “combined RISK scores” for many 2006 model-year vehicles. The group's scores are said to use a calculated composite of NHTSA and IIHS crash ratings, weighted according to actual fatality risk in accidents, along with known factors that raise the fatality risk in vehicles, like weight, the presence of stability control, and the presence of a side-curtain airbag. The group’s founder, a mechanical engineer, reportedly believes that the ratings now published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety are inadequate; "Automakers have figured out that safety is a selling point," he is quoted as saying. Referring to the frequent mention of crash ratings in ads, he stated: "Five stars is such a small part of the overall picture. You need to be looking at so much more." The group’s ratings and an explanation of their system can be found at Informed for Life.
Posted by MVHAP at 10:20 AM